tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg April 9, 2015 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york, this is "charlie rose." charlie: dzhokhar tsarnaev was found guilty today of all counts in the april 2013 boston marathon bombing case. he carried out the bombings along with his 26-year-old brother, tamerlan tsarnaev. the explosions left three people dead. and more than 260 injured in the worst act of terrorism on american soil since the attacks of september 11. the brothers killed an m.i.t. police officer during the six-day manhunt that followed. tamerlan tsarnaev was killed during a shootout with police in massachusetts.
the second phase of the trial will begin next week. the jury will decide whether to sentence tsarnaev to death. joining me to talk about this and its implications are rikki klieman, an attorney and legal analyst for cbs news. masha gessen, a journalist and author of a new book about the boston marathon bombers called "the brothers -- the road to an american tragedy." mike barnicle is a contributing editor for msnbc and a former colleague for the "boston globe" and "boston herald." and a well-known bostonian. joining us in new york is dan abrams, he is abc news chief analyst. i am pleased to have them here. i begin with rikki klieman. what is this? rikki: this is the verdict form. it is 32 pages. one of the largest and most complex i've ever seen in a criminal case. there are parts to each count. it is not just only answering guilty or not guilty on 30 counts. there are 99 decisions the jury
had to make. making a decision of guilt or not as to each of the subcounts. i think that was an adequate time. the defense said to the jurors he did it. it was him. he should be held responsible. opening and closing. it wasn't that this jury had to really think about whether he was not guilty. they only had to think about whether the government proved each element of these counts. charlie: does this surprise you at all? dan: no. when the defense is coming forward and saying my client did it, it is not a tough decision they have to make. it was complicated in the way that rikki is describing but it was not a hard choice. it is a different issue when you're talking about are they going to impose the death penalty.
i don't think talking about how quickly they did it is going to tell us anything about whether these same 12 jurors will now come back and decide to impose the death penalty. that is a very different question. charlie: what might influence them? dan: they are supposed to weigh the reasons to execute. the severity of the crime, etc. the defense will argue it was primarily his brother who did this and not him. in the end, when you are talking about the death penalty, it becomes a gut call. there is not a right way to argue mitigating. do the jurors think this person deserves to die? you have at least one juror who said she opposes the death penalty.
she said she could impose it but she is personally opposed to it. the fact that this was an easy call for the jurors in the guilt phase says nothing about how hard this may be in the state of massachusetts when it comes to the penalties. charlie: what do you think the people of boston would want to happen to him? mike: there is a sense of pride and the nobility of our justice system that these two brothers one died and one has been on trial. we did it. american justice worked. we had a trial of the terrorists. he was found guilty. now we go into a another phase. with all due respect to the
lawyers involved, you set the statute side. human nature plays a governing role. you have the life of a human being in your hand. it is going to be interesting to see what happens during the course of this phase. judy clark, the defense lawyer did a masterful job in making sure the jury did not find the defense obnoxious. there will be an element of sympathy, that will play a role. charlie: tell me what you learned about these two men in writing this book? masha: it is a tragic story. these were two kids who were moved around from place to place, never at home anywhere. they were born in chechnya, but they moved around their entire lives. they were not accepted anywhere. the american dream shown for a while and then it didn't.
it is a sad story. charlie: how did they become what they became? masha: you can never tell. there are millions of people who have had bad luck, been marginalized, and who don't go and build bombs. there is a logical leap there any way. you can just tell the story leading up to it. in that sense the defense has a good case that dzhokhar tsarnaev probably would not have taken the leap without the older brother. rikki: there is an interesting question about gut reaction. when we are looking at the death penalty, they have to decide is this defendant the worst of the worst? the government's argument is if not him then who? this gives us the counterpoint.
his brother. his brother was worse than he was. perhaps though his brother is dead, if they had been on trial together, perhaps the brother would have gotten the death penalty. that is a very interesting argument for the defense to make literally or even as a subject. dan: you only need one juror to say i am not willing to impose the death penalty and it is over. an interesting question is going to be does he testify? it is unlikely. it would be smarter than testifying in the guilt phase. the only way you would consider putting him on the stand is if he is going to say something different than he said scrawled into the boat where he was found. he cannot say i did this because americans are killing innocents in afghanistan.
he would have to say -- i am horribly sorry. my brother brainwashed me. i cannot believe what i did. i think the likelihood of him being willing and able to say that is very small. the chance that he will testify is small. charlie: can he be cross examined? dan: absolutely. rikki: i agree the strategy has been amazing to watch. the defense has sat back. it has cross examined anyone directly affected by the bombing. they have only cross examined some fbi agents and experts. i wouldn't be terribly surprised, it is highly unusual for a defendant to testify. i wouldn't be surprised if he did.
mike: i would be stunned given the evidence i have heard of people who handled him during the course of the trial, taking him in and out. charlie: what anecdotal evidence? mike: that he is sullen, cantankerous, bitter, nonverbal, appears to give off -- charlie: does he want martyrdom? mike: yes. rikki: you have advised not to take the stand. he has the right to overrule your objection. he gets on the stand and says i want martyrdom, i want to join my brother, i want to go to paradise, kill me, they can either agree with him, or they can spite him. they could decide if you want martyrdom perhaps they should give him life. no lawyer will want him to testify. they don't know who he is going
to be when he gets up there. mike: from those who have attended the trial, media people and assistant u.s. attorneys they would tell you repeatedly the most powerful motive for the death penalty, for the jury, would be a film clip the prosecution showed of dzhokhar tsarnaev standing directly behind the young 8-year-old, placing his backpack down behind this young boy, whose body was shredded, whose autopsy was read to the jury. he is there for 45 seconds. not a random act. he knew his surroundings, knew who was in front of him.
that would be the primary motive for a jury to say i am against the death penalty. but boom. [indiscernible] masha: i've attended most of the trial. we don't know what he says. that is confidential. we don't hear the chatter. they do seem to have excellent rapport. it is amazing to watch. they joke. charlie: she is a very good attorney. masha: also marian conrad, who seems to have an even better rapport with him. it is kind of moving to watch. you can see them treating him -- [indiscernible] rikki: which i think is important. mike: what has taken place in that courtroom in boston is an amazing tribute to our justice system in this country. dan: i was going to say, if you
think about the contact she is having with him, very often lawyers know when the jury is watching. every move they make when they are communicating with their client both physically and verbally, they know. they are being watched. when you think about the fact her only goal here is to save his life, one of those rare cases where she is not disputing her client is guilty, where she is just trying to save his life, little things tend to mean more than they would in an ordinary case. that is the only thing that is an issue. charlie: how is boston today? mike: boston is fine. it has been two years to the day since this occurred. there has been a marathon of the spirit in greater boston. people have continued on with their lives, shocked from what
charlie: jeffrey lieberman is here. he is the former president of the american psychiatric association. his new book is called "shrinks." it tackles the mixed legacy of sigmund freud and the latest discoveries in brain science. welcome. dr. lieberman: thank you. i love to be here. charlie: let's talk about the obvious things. do psychiatrists like the word shrink? dr. lieberman: not really. it is demeaning. when i told the title, it was
-- pariahs in the palace of medicine. she said no, she came back and said here is your title, shrinks. demeaning, do you want to sell books? charlie: you say the following about your profession. the profession remains the most distrusted, feared, and denigrated of all medical specialties. dr. lieberman: it is. charlie: why? dr. lieberman: the rodney dangerfield of medical specialties. when medicine began to be a scientific thing, and to go into subspecialties, psychiatry was the runt of the litter and became a late bloomer.
the reason was, as medical research identified mainly in postmortem studies of cadavers the pathology of heart disease and cancer, respiratory illnesses, when it came to the brain and mental illness they came up empty-handed. they couldn't find anything. with no scientific evidence for an illness, no operative theory or framework to understand mental illness, sigmund freud entered the picture and he filled the vacuum with this theory of the mind, which was entirely a theory, and it was metaphysical. charlie: why did it take over as so defining of psychiatry? dr. lieberman: he's an interesting character.
he's the most famous psychiatrist in human history. he was not actually a psychiatrist. he was trained as a neurologist. at the time, neurologists would see people with behavioral disturbances. there was no scientific basis for this. what he did was invented an understanding, a conception of the human mind which explained how people became who they were as a person and what motivated their behavior. at the time it was revolutionary. the thinking was, everybody knew exactly what was in their mind and what caused them to do what they did. we had no idea of the unconscious, of the idea of defense mechanisms, that there were different components of the mind. he invented it. he made two mistakes. that he was a control freak, and he would not permit his theory
to be subject to scientific verification. you had to accept it on face and it became a dogma and religion. charlie: because he thought it would be debunked? dr. lieberman: he had absolute confidence. he thought people would begin to distort it and implement the talking inappropriately. the second mistake was his followers, his disciples. his theory applies to the worried well, people who do not have illnesses, who just have challenges in daily living. it has no relevance to mental illness, schizophrenia manic-depressive illness depression, excessive compulsive disorder, autism. charlie: illnesses of the brain. dr. lieberman: and when his disciples began to apply it to these conditions, for example, one of his disciples, a psychiatrist in the story, "i never promised you a rose garden," she called it a
schizophrenic mother, suggesting the mother's behavior towards the child was the reason for schizophrenia. they committed one of the most heinous sins of all, they labeled homosexuality a disorder, and explained that as having an overinvolved controlling, castrating mother and a weak father. this was a grievous mistake that caused the country to lose -- charlie: the greatest hero of psychiatry and the most calamitous.
dr. lieberman: exactly. charlie: when did neuroscience to have an impact? the idea of being able to look at the brain from a molecular level. dr. lieberman: there is a former chairman of psychiatry at yale who made a telling comment in the late 1960's, 1970's. this was after psychopharmacology, with the medications for mental illness and the beginning of neuroimaging, molecular biology having an impact. for the last 50 years psychiatrists have been brainless, and now we are going to be mindless. we are going to over focus on the brain, neurons, cells, and not think about the mind. charlie: swinging back to some balance now. dr. lieberman: exactly. the oscillations that have
characterized the field are now arriving at a point which really embraces neuroscience to understand how the brain works and how it underpins human behavior and disturbances, but also that no matter how much you know about human biology, the construct of the mind and the personality is still something that has to be appreciated in order to be able to diagnose mental illness and treat people effectively. charlie: what is your definition of the difference between the brain and the mind. dr. lieberman: the brain is the organ. the mind is a metaphysical construct which describes the mental functions of the brain. the brain -- one of the things that i think has been not
appreciated about psychiatry psychiatry gets a bad rap for a lot of things. it is not that people were slackers. it is not that they weren't smart. the brain is so much harder. you do this wonderful series which describes the brain, the heart is vital, important in our culture. the heart is a pump. it is a muscle. the kidney is a filter. the lung is a bellows. the brain, 100 billion neurons 30 trillion connections. able to perform a myriad of connections from your temperature to insights and creativity to produce art and
things of that sort. it is the most complicated organ in the universe. and it has taken a long time to understand it. we have just scratched the surface. charlie: what do you hope to achieve from the president's brain initiative. dr. lieberman: when i first heard about that we kind of groaned. it is going to focus on neurotechnology and psychiatry hasn't really benefited that much from technology in the past. when you really look into it, it is going to be tremendously beneficial for all areas of the reason is this -- scientific progress is only enabled by the level of technology available to it. galileo could not have proved heliocentrism without a
telescope. what we have come to understand is that even though we can do a lot of things in the brain using various basic science disciplines, to physiology, the brain when it becomes too behavioral and mental functions, you have to be able to monitor tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of cells and multiple neurocircuits simultaneously to understand why you perceive something, you interpret the information, make a judgment, and decide to hack this way. we don't have the tools to do it. the initiative is to create a new, more powerful set of tools to deconstruct the brain. charlie: there was an incident in south carolina about a police officer shooting a man in the back. a disturbing video. without knowing any facts, does that have to do with what? all kinds of emotional things? fear?
race? does it have to do with influence that shaped one's capacity to react? dr. lieberman: it is potentially any one of a number of things you mentioned. charlie: without having seen or talked to the subject. dr. lieberman: the first thing is, i would say it is unlikely that it was due to mental illness. more likely it is due to an individual who reacted to a situation and made a very bad judgment. alternatively, somebody who is prone to sadistic and aggressive behavior and has bad impulse control. these are aspects of the broad range of human behavior that many people possess and are vulnerable to, as opposed to mental illness.
we have many incidents where mental illness has been the reason that has compelled them to their violent act. we talked about jared lautner, who was schizophrenic and acting at the behest of this psychotic symptom. the police officer in south carolina was not that kind of person. this was something due to his character and the way he reacted to the situation. charlie: without having talked to him and knowing. we all asked ourselves those questions. dr. lieberman: when you come up against these violent incidents, whether it is timothy mcveigh blowing up the federal building in oklahoma, whether it is major hassan in fort hood, or adam lanza, or whether it is this
pilot in the german wings plane. there is a method and a body of knowledge to be able to discern what is the motivation and cause of it? the method is a deductive method of knowing who the individual is, and what degree they may have been related to a mental illness, or some of the more mundane venal motivations that characterize human behavior. whether it is a crime of passion, crime of greed, a vendetta to try and take revenge, or something. these are all understandable. often times, what happens in the discourses they get lumped in together and conflated with someone's political issue. given adequate information we are able to make more precise
determination. charlie: what is the red line where it becomes a mental illness and therefore a legal defensive act? dr. lieberman: the law of not guilty by reason of insanity varies. in my definition it is when someone is so influenced by the pathology of their illness they are not able to discern right from wrong, and why they are doing what they are doing. a famous case from your home state in north carolina. there was a law student named wendell williamson who had a psychotic episode. his first onset of schizophrenia. he was hospitalized and treated. he went home for the summer and stopped taking medications. he came back to school and relapsed. nobody noticed.
he walked up to franklin street, and he killed two people. the voices were telling him to do it. somebody like this, and then when he was treated he had perfect insight to what he had done. charlie: he was not insane? dr. lieberman: he was when he did it. he will spend the rest of his life in a mental hospital. one of the most implementing -- emblematic forms of mental illness that typifies our society has not been able or willing to acknowledge and deal with mental illness. ptsd. it is now the signature wound of our military campaigns. ptsd, which was not named -- post-traumatic stress disorder it was named after vietnam.
ptsd has existed throughout human warfare. we called it shellshocked, battle fatigue. the military could not acknowledge this because it is antithetical to think you can have psychological vulnerability in a force that is supposed to be attacking the enemy. it wasn't until huge numbers in world war ii of the casualties of war who had to be removed from service that this began to be acknowledged. even then it didn't find its way into the diagnosed nomenclature until vietnam. we still haven't really made an all-out push to understand the underlying cause of it and develop treatments. what i would say is that in the late 1970's we are faced with a
crisis of a new illness, aids. there was such a strong advocacy to compel the government to invest resources to treat it within six years we had identified the cause, and in another six years treatments were developed to make it a chronic illness. the same all-out push needs to be done for ptsd. charlie: and depression as well? dr. lieberman: ptsd is the consequence of these traumatic experiences. if individuals have depression or any other mental disorder in the context of that, this will also be able to be studied and treated in this context. the question is how do you take somebody who is behaving normally, and then because of an ied exploding, a firefight, they all of a sudden become permanently changed.
charlie: candice bergen is here. she first began performing as a child. her credits as an actor include "carnal knowledge" and "starting over." she is known for her role as murphy brown. candice: i want to ask you something. it is a favor. it's a big favor. i want you to father my child. >> excuse me? >> i want to have a baby. i think it could work. >> this is a joke right. >> i know you are thinking it is unorthodox. >> you want to have sex with me? oh my god.
>> i don't want to have sex with you. i am talking about fertilizing an egg. we don't even have to be in the same room. charlie: that is still funny. candice: yes it is. it was a good show. charlie: her new memoir is called "a fine romance." candice: it is primarily about my love of my daughter, and of her father. charlie: we will talk more in a minute. between the time he wrote about your memoir, 30 years -- why did it take you so long? candice: well, first of all, i
wasn't -- i did not want to write about my late husband's illness and his death. even now, it was painful to write about it. people ask me. they think don't you think it is time? i didn't have much else to do. i managed to put it off. i was four years late. charlie: you dedicate it to bunny, the name you call chloe. and which she calls you. candice: yes. that's what we do. charlie: what do you learn about writing this memoir? candice: you learn to take responsibility for many bad choices. you learn that you just do the best you can at the time.
you reexperience wonderful moments in your life. and you give thanks for those. i don't know i have learned any mottos i can pass on. it is a valuable experience. aa tells their members to write self inventories. it is helpful to go back in your past and excavate it. charlie: people always say, i would have loved to have known what i know now. i have to go through what i went through to know what i know now. candice: yeah. i wish i had sidestepped many events in my life, but they all brought me here, which is a nice place. charlie: why is a nice place? candice: i've had such a rich
life. i have a daughter, who is a stellar kid by any standard. and it is thrilling to watch her take her place in life. i have a man who loves me inexplicably. and who is very demonstrative, and very much a present partner. charlie: when you had to do something he hated to see you go. candice: yeah, i did a broadway show. be home. i would not go out after work. he likes -- charlie: you. candice: he likes traditional marriage. charlie: and you? candice: i didn't get married until i was 34, so i have a great capacity for being alone which is what i miss.
charlie: when you met louis, it wasn't instant this is the man for me. diane furstenberg set up a lunch. candice: she had a picnic at her house. i was a guest of mike nichols and i met louis. we were sitting on the grass and introducing ourselves. mike was a big fan of louis. it took us until he called for lunch. we had lunch for four hours.
charlie: there was another dinner in los angeles. the date did not go spectacularly. candice: we were so intensely self-conscious we didn't speak. charlie: why was he the right man? candice: he was a brilliant man. he was incredibly talented. he had bottomless curiosity. i would be sitting next to him and think that was one of the most fascinating men in the world. when you get past a certain age you sort of have a sense where you have landed where you are supposed to stay. charlie: had you decided you wanted a child before that? candice: no. i was ambivalent. i was a creature of my time. the feminist movement. it was sort of turbulent for women. many women were missing the moment they could have children.
i suddenly thought -- charlie: what? candice: i might have missed it. charlie: so you said let's get on with it. candice: five years after we were married. i was almost turned to dust. charlie: what? [laughter] candice: i was older. as it turned out i did get pregnant easily. charlie: he had a painful illness. you had to take care of him in your house for the last year of his life. candice: yeah. he had illnesses which morphed into other illnesses and morphed into illnesses. i don't even remember the letters. the illness eventually ended up -- it attacked the base of his brain. he lost his ability to walk. he lost his ability to speak. we gave up speaking because he
found it so demeaning to try to speak. he could move his right hand. he would communicate with his hands. it was horrible to be with someone you love, and not be able to help when they are as sick as that. my daughter was nine years old at the time. everyone just stepped up to the plate. it takes a lot out of anyone surrounding that. charlie: did you think you would marry again? candice: i didn't even think i'd date again. three years afterward i had one dinner and i was home by nine. charlie: did you want to? candice: i just thought it was hopeless. charlie: candice bergen, it's hopeless. candice: one gets to a certain age and things change.
charlie: when will i get to that age? candice: you are the exception charlie. [laughter] charlie: then comes marshall and sets up that dinner. he picks you up to take you to dinner. candice: a dinner that i didn't find out until our wedding was a setup. it was to introduce me to marshall. i thought it was just a dinner. charlie: you thought this was a neat guy. candice: don said -- a man is going to pick you up. i said fine. there was this great looking man with these wonderful eyes. i trust this guy immediately. charlie: and he loved you so much. candice: not then. charlie: i bet he did. [laughter] i know all these people.
we kid about being brothers, cousins, something. he had a wonderful marriage. you had a wonderful marriage. you have lost your spouse. candice: within the same timeframe. it is a big event to have in common. charlie: you have to come to terms with it. candice: and you know to a degree what the other has gone through, and how debilitating it is with the family. charlie: those are the three loves, chloe, marshall, louis. did louis want to put you in a movie? candice: no. he didn't. i don't think i would have been up to it. he said, to not be able to get away from your cast at the end of the day is just asking too much of a director. [laughter] he would just like to leave the set and go home.
charlie: but he liked actors. candice: he loved actors, but actors are needy. [laughter] charlie: you have really strong feelings and thoughts about being beautiful. everybody knew how beautiful you are, people wanted you in movies before you were even good. candice: hundreds of years before i knew what i was doing. just tell me where you wanted me. charlie: i'm old enough to know when you were just -- she is going to be great. candice: but she wasn't. charlie: but she was beautiful. candice: that was not enough. charlie: he said that you, didn't he. you can't depend on beauty. because that is going to go away. candice: i was forewarned by my father when i was nine years old, we were in the car. he said candy, it is the beautiful women who commit suicide.
it is the beautiful women who when they lose their looks, they struggle and have nothing to fall back on, nothing to rely on, and then they get in trouble. you must always develop your outside interests. you must always follow -- mine was photography. and writing kind of. charlie: when you started making movies, did you think i'm not very good? i better get good because i love this? candice: no. i just kind of tuned out. which is what you saw. a person who was kind of taking up space on the stage. for some reason i kept doing it. charlie: we always thought she is not only beautiful, she is smart. you had something there that people said she is very special. did you feel special? candice: i feel special now. but i didn't then.
i had a lot invested because what my father told me and not being beautiful and not paying attention to my looks. i've always been remarkably unvain about my looks. charlie: were you unvain about acting? candice: i didn't know what i was doing. i underestimated the difficulty and the complexity of the job. also, i deprived myself of the joy of the work. charlie: when did it -- was it easy for you? were you simply gliding through life saying -- candice: it was never easy. but, i was dancing as fast as i could. as were many of us. [laughter]
charlie: dancing as fast as we could. like paddling as fast as we could. staying above water. candice: i'm fine. charlie: did you need help? are there blemishes here? are their faults, things that you said oh my god, that was crazy. i was so wild. candice: i was very wild. charlie: i know you were. candice: i hated to get up early in the morning. charlie: i know. but was that about? fun? candice: acting out to get my father's attention. that is what my guess is. you think i would know by now. but just like -- maybe if i do this, and i disappear for a couple of -- i was just doing everything to say -- i was
always in some perverse way courting my father's approval. that is not unusual. charlie: it is not unusual at all. candice: which i never really felt that i got. charlie: until the end. candice: no. i was endlessly provocateur with him. i was given a forum of the press when i was 19. i acted out my adolescence in newspapers and magazines. my parents were like -- stop it. the reagans are oldest friends. i was taking potshots at anyone. charlie: yes, yes. that was what? help me understand more of what that was. on the one part it is because you want your father to notice you. candice: i think being beautiful slows down your self discovery process.
charlie: because life is easy? candice: because you are responded to on a level that has nothing to do with who you are trying to find. people were responding to my looks in a way that mattered that made no sense to me. all i felt was that something about me mattered so much to people. it wasn't who i was. i had no idea who that was. it just made too much difference. charlie: when did you find yourself? candice: probably in my 30's. i moved back to new york. that is always -- charlie: the hollywood period was over. what did "murphy brown" mean to you? you got all these nominations. the show was spectacular.
[indiscernible] candice: murphy was the dream job. charlie: was it you? candice: it was the heart of me. the heart of me that only the people i was closest to saw. murphy contributed. it just gave me a new kind of confidence. i was swaggering during that time. it was such a great job. we had such a good time. charlie: it was great. candice: the writing was exceptional. charlie: the whole thing was great. you knew you were good. you knew it was good. it fit you, you fit it. candice: and who would have
thought? you have cast who to play comedy? i loved playing her for 10 years. charlie: did it make you crazy when it was over? candice: frankly we were beating a dead horse by that time. charlie: do you want to act? candice: i don't want to act for prolonged periods of time. i want to accommodate my marriage. but i loved working broadway. i love how people do it for the work. and not the money. and not their double wide trailers. they are just there because they love the words, they love the craft. charlie: thank you. candice: thank you. charlie: the book is called "a fine romance." her original was called "knock wood." thank you. see you next time. ♪
cory: live from pier three in san francisco, welcome to bloomberg west where we cover innovation, technology, and the future of business. ebay and paypal reveal details about how the companies will operate after they split. the businesses are drawing up a five year operating agreement between the two. it will ensure 80% of merchandise sales are routed through paypal over the next five years. ebay director thomas tierney will become the chairman of the online marketplace.